From a Publicist’s Diary

Published:First published inRabochyNo. 10  September 14 (1), 1917.

      Signed:N. Lenin.

      Published according to theRabochytext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 25,

      pages294-304.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive.  

      2002You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

1. THE ROOT OF THE EVIL

Everyonewill probably agree that the writer N. Sukhanov ofNovaya Zhiznis one of the best rather than worst representatives
    of petty-bourgeois democracy. He sincerely leans towards
    internationalism, which he has proved in the hardest times, at the
    height of tsarist reaction and chauvinism. He has knowledge and a
    desire to work out serious problems independently, which he has
    proved by his long evolution from Socialist-Revolutionism towards
    revolutionary Marxism.

Itis all the more characteristic that even such people are
    apt, when dealing with the fundamental issues of the revolution in
    its crucial periods, to treat their readers to arguments as
    thoughtless as the following:

“Nomatter how many revolutionary gains we have lost in the
    past few weeks, one, and perhaps the most important of all, is
    still there: the government and its policies can only he
    maintained by the grace of the Soviet majority. The revolutionary
    democrats have of their own accord given up all the influence they
    commanded; the democratic organs can still regain it very easily
    and, given proper understanding of the requirements of the moment,
    can without difficulty direct the policies of the Provisional
    Government into the proper channel”
      (Novaya ZhiznNo. 106,
    August 20).

“Nomatter how many revolutionary gains we have lost in the
    past few weeks, one, and perhaps the most important of all, is
    still there: the government and its policies can only he
    maintained by the grace of the Soviet majority. The revolutionary
    democrats have of their own accord given up all the influence they
    commanded; the democratic organs can still regain it very easily
    and, given proper understanding of the requirements of the moment,
    can without difficulty direct the policies of the Provisional
    Government into the proper channel”
      (Novaya ZhiznNo. 106,
    August 20).

Thesewords contain the most thoughtless, the most monstrous
    untruth concerning the most important Issue of the revolution, an
    untruth, moreover, which has most often been put about, in vastly
    differing countries, among the petty-bourgeois democrats and has
    ruined the greatest number of revolutions.

Whenyou think over the sum total of petty-bourgeois illusions
    contained in the argument quoted above, you cannot help thinking
    that it is no accident theNovaya Zhiznpeople sit at the
    “unity”
      congress[1]together withMinisters, with socialists
    eligible for the cabinet, with the Tseretelis and Skobelevs, with
    cabinet members who are comrades of Kerensky, Kornilov and Co. No
    accident at all. They actually have a common ideological
    foundation,namely, unreasoning philistine gullibility,
    uncritically borrowed from the petty-bourgeois environment, in
    good intentions. For this gullibility pervades all of Sukhanov’s
    argument, as well as all the activities of those defencist
    Mensheviks who act in good faith. This petty-bourgeois gullibility
    is the root of the evil in our revolution.

Sukhanovwould probably hasten to subscribe to what Marxism
    demands of all serious policy, namely, that it be based on and
    grounded infactscapable of exact and objective verification. Let
    us try to approach the assertion which Sukhanov makes in the
    passage above from the point of view of this demand.

Whatare the facts underlying this assertion? How could
    Sukhanov prove that the government “can only be maintained by
    the grace” of the Soviets, that they could “very easily”
    “regain their influence”, or that they could “without
    difficulty” change the policies of the Provisional
    Government?

Sukhanovcould have referred, first, to his general impression,
    to the “obvious” strength of the Soviets, to the fact that
    Kerensky came to the Soviet, to the amiable words of this or that
    minister, etc. This would certainly have been very poor
    proof—rather an admission of the complete lack of proof and
    objective facts.

Sukhanovcould have referred, secondly, to the objective fact
    that by far most of the resolutions passed 1y workers, soldiers
    and peasants declare emphatically for the Soviets and in favour of
    supporting them. These resolutions, he might have said,
    demonstrate the will of the majority of the people.

Thiskind of reasoning is as common among philistines as the
    first kind. But it is absolutely untenable.

Inall revolutions, the will of the majority of the workers and
    peasants, i.e., undoubtedly, the will of the majority of the
    population, has been for democracy. Nevertheless, the great
    majority of revolutions have ended with the defeat of
    democracy.

Inview of the experience of the majority of revolutions,
    particularly that of 1848 (which resembles our present revolution
    most), Marx mercilessly ridiculed the petty-bourgeois democrats who
    wished to win through resolutions and references to the will of
    the majority of the people.

Ourown experience proves this even better. In the spring of
    1906 most of the resolutions passed by workers and peasants were
    undoubtedly in favour of the First Duma. The majority of the
    people undoubtedly stood for it. Nevertheless, the tsar succeeded
    in dissolving it because the upswing of the revolutionary classes
    (workers’ strikes and peasant unrest in the spring of 1906) proved
    too weak for a new revolution.

Thinkover the,experience of the present revolution. Both from
    March to April and from July to August 1917, most resolutions were
    for the Soviets, the majority of the people were for the
    Soviets. Yet everyone sees, knows and feels that from March to
    April the revolution was moving forward, whereas from July to
    August it was moving backwards. Consequently, reference to the
    majority of the people decides nothing as far as the specific
    issues of a revolution are concerned.

Thisreference, made by way of proof, is in itself a specimen
    of petty-bourgeois illusion. It shows unwillingness to admit that
    in a revolution the enemy classes must bedefeated, the state
    power that defends them must beoverthrownand that the “will
    of the majority of the people” is insufficient to bring this
    about. What is needed is thestrengthof the revolutionary classes
    that will and can fight, a strength which at the decisive moment
    and place willcrushthe enemy’s strength.

Howoften has it happened during revolutions that the small but
    well-organised, armed and centralised power of the ruling classes,
    the landowners and the bourgeoisie, has crushed piecemeal the
    power of the “majority of the people”, who were poorly
    organised, poorly armed and lacked unity.

Tomake “general” references to the “will of the
    people” instead of considering specific issues of the class
    struggle at a time when it has been particularly sharpened by the
    revolution is worthy only of the most stupid petty bourgeois.

Thirdly,in the comment quoted above, Sukhanov advances another
    “argument” that is likewise fairly common amongphilistines. He says “the revolutionary democrats have of their
    own accord given up all the influence they commanded”. From
    this he infers that what was given up “of their own accord”
    can be taken back easily.

Anutterly worthless argument. First of all, the return of what
    was voluntarily ceded presupposes the “voluntary consent” of
    the beneficiary of the concession. It follows that this voluntary
    consent is there. Who has received the
      “concession”? Who
    has profited from the “influence” given up by the
    “revolutionary democrats”?

Itis quite typical that this question, fundamental to all but
    a headless politician, is completely ignored by Sukhanov. For the
    crux of the matter is precisely in whose hands is,in practice,
    that which the “revolutionary [pardon the expression I
    democrats” have “given up of their own accord”.

Sukhanovignores the crux of the matter, as do all Mensheviks
    and Socialist-Revolutionaries, all petty-bourgeois democrats in
    general.

Moreover,it may be that in a child’s “give-and-take”
    game it is easy to take something back: if Katya freely lets Masha
    have her ball, it may be “very easy” to take it back. But
    there are not many, apart from Russian intellectuals, who would
    venture to extend such conceptions to politics, to the class
    struggle.

Inpolitics, ceding “influence” of one’s own free will
    proves such impotence on the part of the one who does the ceding,
    such flabbiness, such lack of character, such meekness, that,
    generally speaking, the only thing one can infer is that whoever
    gives up his influence of his own accord “deserves” to be
    deprived of his right to exist as well as his influence. In other
    words, the fact of voluntarily giving up one’s influence
    “proves” in itself only this, that the beneficiary of the
    voluntarily ceded influence will inevitably deprive the one who
    has ceded it even of his rights.

Ifthe “revolutionary democrats” have voluntarily ceded
    their influence, they are therefore not revolutionary but vile,
    philistine, cowardly democrats still bound by servility, democrats
    whom (after such a surrender) their enemies can either disperse or
    simply reduce to naught, allowing them to die as much “of their
    own accord” as they ceded their influence.

Toregard the actions of political parties aswhimsmeans
    renouncing allstudyof politics. There must by anexplanationfor
    an action like the “giving up of their influence of their own
    accord” by two huge parties which, according to all available
    information and reports and to objective election figures, sway
    the majority of the people. It cannot be accidental. It must be
    due to a definite economic position of some large class of the
    people. It must be linked up with the history of the development
    of those parties.

Sukhanov’sargument is highly typical of thousands upon
    thousands of similar philistine arguments because it is in effect
    based on the conception of good will (“their own accord”)
    and ignores thehistoryof the parties under
    consideration. Sukhanov has simply left their history out of his
    examination, forgetting that voluntary surrender of influence
    began, strictly speaking, on February 28, when the Soviet
    expressed confidence in Kerensky and approved the
    “agreement” with the Provisional Government. And May 6 was a
    surrender of influence on a truly gigantic scale. Taken as a
    whole, it is all as clear as can be: the S.R. and Menshevik
    parties placed themselves on an inclined plane from the very
    first, and rolled down faster and faster. After July 3-5, they
    reached rock bottom.

Isn’tit perfectly thoughtless to say now that the surrender
    was voluntary, that it is “very easy” to make great
    political parties face about, that they can “without
    difficulty” be induced to take the opposite direction to the
    one they have been following for years (and for months during the
    revolution), and that it is “very easy” to scramble out of
    the pit and climb up the inclined plane to the top?

Fourthlyand lastly, Sukhanov could in defence of his opinion
    have referred to the fact that the workers and soldiers, who
    express confidence in the Soviet, are armed and therefore could
    “very easily” regain their influence. But it is on this,
    perhaps the most important, point that the philistine comment of
    the writer ofNovaya Zhiznis particularly lame.

Tobe as specific as possible, let us compare April 20–21 with
    July 3–5.

OnApril 20 popular indignation against the government burst
    out. An armed regiment came on to the streets of Petrograd
    intending to arrest the government. There wasno arrest. The
    government, however, saw clearly that it had nobody to rely on. No
    troops were for it.Sucha government was indeed “very easy”
    to overthrow, and the government confronted the Soviet with an
    ultimatum: either you back me, or I go.

OnJuly 4, a similar outburst of popular indignation, an
    outburst which all parties tried to restrain but which broke out
    in spite ofallthe restraining. As before, there was an armed
    anti-government demonstration. But the enormous difference was
    that the S.R. and Menshevik leaders, who had isolated themselves
    from the people and were confused, agreed with the bourgeoisieas
	early as July 3to callKaledin’s troops to Petrograd. There is
    the crux of the matter!

Witha soldier’s frankness, Kaledin said so at the Moscow
    meeting: “After all, it was you socialist Ministers who called
    us to your aid on July 3!” Nobody dared refute Kaledin at the
    Moscow meeting because he spoke the truth. Kaledin mocked the
    Mensheviks and S.R.s, who were compelled to keep silent. The
    Cossack general spat in their faces, but they merely wiped it off
    and said: “Divine dew!”

Thebourgeois papers reported Kaledin’s words but the MenshevikRabochaya Gazetaand the S.R.
      “Dyelo Naroda”concealedthat
    political statement from their readers, the most important
    statement made at the Moscow meeting.

Whathappened was that for the first time the government
    resorted expressly to Kaledin’s troops, while the determined,
    truly revolutionary troops and the workers were disarmed. This is
    the fundamental fact which Sukhanov has “very easily” evaded
    and forgotten. It remains a fact nevertheless. It is a decisive
    fact as far as the present period of the revolution, the first
    revolution, is concerned.

Powerin a decisive place at the front, and then in the army,
    has passed into the hands of theKaledins. This is a fact. The
    most active of the troops hostile to them have been disarmed. The
    fact that the Kaledins do not use their power immediately to
    establish their complete dictatorship does not at all disprove
    that they hold power. Wasn’t the tsar in power after December
    1905? And didn’t circumstances compel him to use it so prudently
    that he had two Dumas convened before he tookall power, i.e.,
    before he made a coup
      d’état[2]?

Powershould be judged by actions instead of words. The actions
    of the government since July 5 have shown that power is in the
    hands of the Kaledins, who are making slow butsteadyheadway,
    daily securing “concessions”, large and small. Today it is
    the impunity with which military cadets raid thePravdaoffices
    and kill its staff members, and make arbitrary arrests; then comes
    a law closing down newspapers, and laws banning meetings and
    conferences, throwing citizens out of the country without trial,
    imposing prison sentences for insulting “the ambassadors of
    friendly countries”, meting out penal servitude for assailing
    the government, introducing capital punishment at the front, and
      so on,and so forth.

TheKaledins are no fools. Why should they go right through,
    forcing their way and risking defeat, when they receive the things
    they need bit by bit,every day? Meanwhile, the foolish Skobelevs
    and Tseretelis, Chernovs and (Avksentyevs, Dans and Liebers shout
    “Triumph for democracy! Victory!” at every step of the
    Kaledins forward, seeing as “victory” the fact that the
    Kaledins, Kornilovs and Kerenskys do not swallow them at
    once!!

Theroot of the evil is that their very economic position makes
    the petty-bourgeois masses amazingly credulous and ignorant, and
    that they are still half asleep and mumble drowsily, “It is
    ‘very easy’ to take back what we have given up of our own free
    will!” Try and get the Kaledins and Kornilovs to give back
    anything of their own free will!

Theroot of the evil is that “democratic” journalism
    maintains this drowsy, philistine, stupid, slavish illusion,
    instead of fighting it.

Ifwe look at things the way a political historian in general
    and a Marxist in particular should, i. e., if we consider them as
    a whole, it is perfectly clear that a decisive turn at present,
    far from being “easy”, is, on the contrary, absolutely
    impossiblewithout a new revolution.

Ido not at all touch here on the question of whether this
    revolution is desirable. I do not at all examine the question of
    whether it can take place peacefully and legally (generally
    speaking, there have been examples of peaceful and legal
    revolutions in history). I merely state that it is historically
    impossible to bring about a decisive turn withouta new
    revolution. For power isalreadyin other hands. It is no longer
    held by the “revolutionary democrats”. It hasalreadybeen
    seized and consolidated. The conduct of the S. B. and Menshevik
    parties is no accident; it is a product of the economic status of
    the petty bourgeoisie, and the result of a long series of
    political events—from February 28 to May 6, from May 6 to June 9, from June 9 to June 18 and 19 (the offensive), etc. There is a
    need for changes in the situation of power, in its composition, in
    the conditions of activity of the major parties, in the
    “aspirations” of the class which sustains them. These
    changes are historically unthinkablewithout a new revolution.

Insteadof explaining to the people all the main historical
    conditions of the new revolution, its economic and political
    prerequisites, its political aims, the interrelation of classes
    that corresponds to it, etc., Sukhanov and a host of
    petty-bourgeois democratsare lullingthe peopleto sleepby
    trifling away their time, by asserting self-complacently that
    “we shall regain everything without difficulty”, “very
    easily”, that our “most important” revolutionary gain
    “is still there”, and similar thoughtless, ignorant,
    downright criminal nonsense.

Thereare signs of a radical social change. They clearly
    indicate the direction of the work to be done. The influence of
    the S.R.s and Mensheviks is plainly dwindling among the
    proletariat, while the influence of the Bolsheviks is plainly
    growing. Incidentally, even tile elections of August 20, compared
    with the June elections to the district
      councils[3]of Petrograd,
    showed anincreasein favour of the Bolsheviks, and this despite
    the bringing of “Kaledin’s troops to Petrograd!”

Amongthe petty-bourgeois democrats, who cannot help wavering
    between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the turn is
    objectively evident from the strengthening, consolidation and
    development of revolutionary internationalist trends: Martov and
    others among the Mensheviks, Spiridonova, Kamkov and others among
    the S.R.s. Needless to say, the approaching famine, economic
    dislocation and military reverses may very greatly hasten this
    turn towards the transfer of vower to the proletariat supported by
    the peasant poor.

2. CORVÉE AND SOCIALISM

Thebitterest enemies of socialism sometimes do it a service by
    the excessive zeal of their “exposures”. They bear down on
    the very things that deserve sympathy and emulation. They open the
    people’s eyes to the infamy of the bourgeoisie by the very nature
    of their attacks.

Thatis what happened to one of the most infamous bourgeois
    newspapers,Russkaya Volya, which on August 20 published a report
    from Yekaterinburg entitled “Corvée”. Here is what it had to
    say:

“TheSoviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies has
	introduced in our city a service in kind by horse-owners, who
	must take it in turns to put their horses at the disposal of
	the Soviet for the daily business trips of its members.“Aspecial schedule has been drawn up and every ‘citizen
	with a horse’ is punctually notified in writing when and
	where, and at what precise hour, be must arrive for duty with
	his horse.“Tomake things clearer, the ‘order’ adds: ‘In the
	event of noncompliance with this demand, the Soviet will hire
	cabmen at your expense to the amount of 25 rubles’.”

“TheSoviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies has
	introduced in our city a service in kind by horse-owners, who
	must take it in turns to put their horses at the disposal of
	the Soviet for the daily business trips of its members.

“Aspecial schedule has been drawn up and every ‘citizen
	with a horse’ is punctually notified in writing when and
	where, and at what precise hour, be must arrive for duty with
	his horse.

“Tomake things clearer, the ‘order’ adds: ‘In the
	event of noncompliance with this demand, the Soviet will hire
	cabmen at your expense to the amount of 25 rubles’.”

Thedefender of the capitalists is indignant, of course. The
    capitalists watch with perfect equanimity how the vast majority of
    the people suffer want all their lives—not only those doing
    “corvée”, but also those doing back-breaking work in a
    factory, mine, or some other job, often starving because they have
    no work at all. And the capitalists look on with equanimity.

Butnow that the workers and soldiers have introduced just one
    little public duty for the capitalists, the exploiters are
    howling, “Corvée!”

Askany worker or peasant whether it would be bad if the
    Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies were the only power in
    the state and introduced everywhere some public duty for the rich,
    such as a compulsory duty with horses, motor vehicles or bicycles,
    compulsory daily clerical work to keep a record of products or of
    the needy, and so on, and so forth.

Anyworker, any peasant, except perhaps the kulaks, will say it
    would be a good thing.

Andthis is true. It is not socialism as yet—only one of the
    first steps towards socialism, but it is just what the poorneed
    urgently and immediately. Without such measures, the people cannot
    be saved from famine and ruin.

Why,then, does the Yekaterinburg Soviet remain a rare
    exception? Why have similar measures not been taken all over
    Russia long ago? Why are they not being developed into a whole
    system of measures of precisely this kind?

Why,after the introduction of a public duty for the rich to
    lend their horses, is a similar public duty for the rich not
    introduced to present full accounts of their financial operations,
    especially by the terms of government contracts, under a similar
    control of the Soviets, with “punctual notification in
    writing” as to when and where the accounts should be presented,
    when and where taxes should be paid, and to what amount?

Becauseby far most of the Soviets are controlled by
    S. R. (“Socialist-Revolutionary”) and Menshevik leaders who
    have in fact deserted to the bourgeoisie, have entered the
    bourgeois cabinet and pledged themselves to support it, betraying
    not only socialism but democracy as well. Those leaders are making
    agreements with the bourgeoisie, who, far from allowing the
    imposition of a public duty on the rich—as in Petrograd, for
    example—have for months been holding up much more moderate
    reforms.

Thoseleaders deceive themselves and the people by saying that
    “Russia is not yet ripe for the introduction of
    socialism”.

Whymust we treat such assertions as deception?

Because,through such assertions, the situation is
    misrepresented to make believe that it is a question of
    unprecedentedly complicated and difficult changes, such as are
    bound to break up the normal way of life of millions of
    people. The situation is misrepresented to make believe that some
    want to “introduce” socialism in Russia by decree, without
    considering the existing technical level, the great number of
    small undertakings, or the habits and wishes of the majority of
    the population.

Thatis a lie from beginning to end. Nobody has ever proposed
    anything of the kind. No party or individual has had any intention
    of “introducing socialism” by decree. It is, and has been, a
    question solely of measures which, like the public duty imposed on
    the rich in Yekaterinburg, havethe full approval of the mass of
    the poor, i.e., the majority of the population, measures which are
    perfectly ripe, technically and culturally, will bring immediate
    relief to the poor and make it possible to ease the hardships of
    the war and distribute them more evenly.

Almostsix months of revolution have passed, but the S. R. and
    Menshevik leaders still obstruct all these measures, betraying the
    interests of the people in favour of compromise with the
    bourgeoisie.

Untilthe workers and peasants realise that those leaders are
    traitors who must be driven out, must be removed from their posts,
    they will inevitably remain under the thumb of the
    bourgeoisie.

[1]TheMensheviks’unity congressin Petrograd from August 19–26
(September 1–8), 1917. Its aim was to unite the isolated Menshevik
groups in a single party. The congress was attended by defencists
(those supporting Plekhanov and Potresov), internationalists
(Martov’s followers) and representatives ofNovaya Zhizn, which
had taken an active part in convening the congress. The congress
passed a resolution in favour of continuing the war “to a victorious
conclusion”. Another resolution approved of the fact that socialists
were members of the Provisional Government, and expressed
confidence in the government. The Central Committee elected at
the congress included P. B. Axelrod, F. I. Dan, L. Martov,
I. G. Tsereteli and N. S. Chkheidze. While the congress was in session,
however, the delegates turned out to differ strongly among
themselves, with the result that the attempt to unify the Mensheviks
virtually failed.

[2]Referenceis to the June 3 coup d’état, which ushered in the period
of the Stolypin reaction.

OnJune 3 (16), 1907, the tsar issued a manifesto dissolving
the Second Duma and revising the Duma election law. The new
law greatly increased the Duma representation of the landowners
and the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, and drastically
reduced the already small proportion of peasants’ and workers’
deputies. It was a gross violation of the Manifesto of October 17,1905, and the Fundamental Law of 1906, both of which made
legislation subject to approval by the Duma. The Third Duma,
elected under the new law, convened on November 1 (14), 1907.
It was made up mostly of Black Hundreds and Octobrists.

[3]Inthe elections to the district councils in Petrograd, held late
in May and early in June 1917, the Bolsheviks polled 20 per cent
of the votes. The elections to the Petrograd City Council on
August 20 (September 2) brought the Bolsheviks 33 per cent of the
votes.